DOCSLIB.ORG

A History of the Fall of Rocor, 2000-2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A History of the Fall of Rocor, 2000-2007 A HISTORY OF THE FALL OF ROCOR, 2000-2007 Vladimir Moss If you see lying and hypocrisy, expose them in front of all, even if they are clothed in purple and fine linen. Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) of New York (1906) Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. Revelation 3.11; the last words of St. Philaret of New York (1985) The Holy Flesh hath passed from thee. Jeremiah 11.15 © Copyright Vladimir Moss 2011. All Rights Reserved. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: THE 1990s ..............................................................................3 I. “THE SECOND OCTOBER REVOLUTION”................................................21 II. THE FALL OF THE NEW YORK SYNOD ...................................................26 III. THE CREATION OF THE MANSONVILLE SYNOD...............................36 IV. THE RUSSIAN TRUE ORTHODOX CHURCH.........................................46 V. THE PLOTTERS FALL INTO THEIR OWN PIT.........................................55 VI. HERESY AND CORRUPTION IN SUZDAL..............................................61 VII. THE END-GAME ..........................................................................................74 CONCLUSION: THE HOLY REMNANT.........................................................81 2 INTRODUCTION: THE 1990s Who hath remained among you that has seen this House in its former glory, and how do you see it now? Is it not in your eyes as it were nothing? But take heart now... Haggai 2.3-4. The return of the Russian Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) to Russia in 1990 after almost seventy years’ exile was undoubtedly one of the most significant events in Church history, comparable to the return of the Jews to Jerusalem after the seventy-year exile in Babylon. And yet this momentous step was taken almost casually, without sufficient forethought or a clearly defined strategy. Hence difficult problems arose, problems that had their roots deep in ROCOR’s past history. These problems can be divided into three categories: (A) ROCOR in relation to her own flock at home and abroad, (B) ROCOR in relation to the Catacomb Church, and (C) ROCOR in relation to the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the post-Soviet Russian State. A. ROCOR in relation to herself. The problem here is easily stated: how could the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad continue to call herself the Church Abroad if she now had parishes inside Russia? After all, her Founding Statute or Polozhenie stated that ROCOR was an autonomous part of the Autocephalous Russian Church, that part which existed (i) outside the bounds of Russia on the basis of Ukaz № 362 of November 7/20, 1920 of Patriarch Tikhon and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, and (ii) temporarily until the fall of communism in Russia. 1 With the fall of communism and the creation of ROCOR parishes inside Russia in 1990-91, it would seem that these limitations in space and time no longer applied, and that ROCOR had ceased to exist as a temporary Church body existing outside Russia in accordance with her own definition of herself in the Polozhenie. The solution to this problem would appear to have been obvious: change the Polozhenie! And this was in fact the solution put forward by ROCOR’s leading canonist, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe). However, the ROCOR episcopate declined that suggestion, and the Polozhenie remained unchanged. Why? Although we have no direct evidence on which to base an answer to this question, the following would appear to be a reasonable conclusion from the events as they unfolded in the early 1990s. A change in the Polozhenie that removed the spatial and temporal limitations of ROCOR’s self-definition 1 ROCOR’s Hierarchical Council of 1956 declared that “the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an unsevered part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, being temporarily self-governing on synodal bases, until the abolition of atheist rule in Russia, in accordance with the resolution of the Holy Patriarch, the Holy Synod and the Higher Russian Church Council of November 7/20, 1920, № 362”. 3 would have had the consequence of forcing ROCOR to define herself as the one true Russian Orthodox Church, and therefore to remove the centre of her Church administration from America to Russia and enter into a life-and-death struggle with the MP for the minds and hearts of the Russian people. However, the ROCOR bishops were not prepared to accept these consequences. After all, they were well-established abroad, increasingly dependent economically on contributions from foreign converts to Orthodoxy, and with few exceptions were not prepared to exchange the comforts and relative security of life in the West for the uncertainty and privations of life in Russia, where, although communism was crumbling, the communist élites were still in place in both Church and State. Of course, the whole raison d’être of ROCOR was to return to her homeland in Russia (she was previously called the Russian Church in Exile, and exiles by definition want to return to their homeland); and it was in anticipation of such a return that she had steadfastly refused to endanger her Russian identity by merging with other Local Orthodox Churches or by forming local jurisdictions identified with specific western countries (like the formerly Russian schism from ROCOR calling itself the Orthodox Church of America). But generations had passed since the first emigration, the descendants of that first emigration had settled in western countries, learned their languages, adopted their ways, put down roots in foreign soil, married non-Russians (and often, alas, non-Orthodox non-Russians). The exiles were no longer exiles from, but strangers to, their native land… B. ROCOR in relation to the Catacomb Church. Since 1927, when ROCOR had broken communion simultaneously with the Catacomb Church from Metropolitan Sergius’ MP, she had looked upon the Catacomb Church as the True Church inside Russia with which she remained in mystical communion of prayer and sacraments, even if such communion could not be realized in face-to-face meeting and concelebration. Indeed, after the death of Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, the last universally recognised leader of the Russian Church, in 1937, ROCOR commemorated “the episcopate of the persecuted Russian Church”, by which was undoubtedly meant the episcopate of the Catacomb Church. After the war, however, a change began to creep in. On the one hand, news of Catacomb bishops and communities became more and more scarce, and some even began to doubt that the Catacomb Church existed any longer (Archbishop Mark of Berlin declared in the 1990s, when catacombniks were pouring into ROCOR, that the Catacomb Church had died out in the 1950s!). On the other hand, some Catacomb priests inside Russia, having lost contact with, and knowledge of, any canonical bishops there might still be inside Russia, began commemorating Metropolitan Anastasy, first-hierarch of ROCOR. These tendencies gave rise to the not unnatural perception that the leadership of True Russian Orthodoxy had now passed from inside Russia to 4 outside Russia, to ROCOR. Moreover, the significance of the Catacomb Church began to be lost, as the struggle was increasingly seen to be between the “red church” inside Russia (the MP) and the “white church” outside Russia (ROCOR). Of course, the idea of the Catacomb Church remained sacred. But the heroes of the past – the great hieromartyrs of the 1920s and 30s - looked more glorious than their present-day followers. And some even began to look on the “catacombniks”, not as the True Church of Russia clothed in the purple robes of hundreds of thousands of martyrs, but as a spent force – or as uneducated sectarians in need of rescue. They looked on the humble catacombniks, serving, not in the splendid cathedrals of the emigration, but in poor, dingy flats, if not as contemptible, at any rate as unimportant. How could the Russian Church, so splendid in its pre- revolutionary glory, be resurrected on the basis of such poverty? Now it must be admitted that the Catacomb Church was desperately in need of help. After several decades of constant persecution, her population was aging and scattered, with fewer and fewer priests and almost no bishops, while the infiltration of KGB “plants” tended to make different groups suspicious of each other. ROCOR – the one church authority that all catacombniks agreed was true - could indeed provide an inestimable service to them by restoring their apostolic succession, educating a new generation of priests and helping them to adapt to and take advantage of the new conditions of post-Soviet Russia. But much depended on how tactfully this was done. When the first consecration of a bishop for the Catacomb Church was performed by ROCOR on Archimandrite Lazarus (Zhurbenko), it was said that this was done “in order to regulate the church life of the Catacomb Church”.2 But what precisely did this “regulation” mean? If the ROCOR bishops saw their role as providing help for the catacombniks in the same way as they had helped the Greek Old Calendarists in 1969-71 – that is, by re- establishing them as an independent “sister-church”, to use the phrase of Metropolitan Philaret of New York, - then there was hope for a truly profitable cooperation. After all, it was not only the catacombniks who needed help: since the death of the holy Metropolitan Philaret in 1985, ROCOR was beginning to waver in her own faith and piety. Her members needed, in the words of the Lord in Revelation (3.18) to “buy gold tried in the fire” of persecution – and the catacombniks who had passed through the fire of the Soviet persecution had much to offer and instruct them. However, already at a very early stage the impression was created that ROCOR had come into Russia, not in order to unite with the Catacomb Church and work with her for the triumph of True Orthodoxy in Russia, but in order to replace her, or at best to gather the remnants of the catacombs under her sole authority…3 2 “Zaiavlenie Arkhierejskago Sinoda Russkoj Pravoslvnoj Tserkvi Zagranitsej”, Pravoslavnaia Rus’, № 18 (1423), 15/28 September, 1990, p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 25Th Anniversary of the Repose of Metropolitan Philaret All Saints of Russia Orthodox Church Diocese of Western America Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia 3274 E
    3274 E Iliff Ave Denver CO (303)757-3533 The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia december 2010 November 21, 2010 25th Anniversary of the repose of Metropolitan Philaret All Saints of Russia Orthodox Church Diocese of Western America Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia 3274 E. Iliff Ave. Denver, Colorado 80210 (303) 757-3533 Parish Clergy: Archpriest Boris Henderson, Rector Home (303) 753-1401 Cell phone (720) 244-3255 Priest Michael Preobrazhensky Deacon Jan Veselak Rdr. Timothy Henderson Taper-bearer Vladimir Lander Parish Staff: Warden: Alexander Yaremenko Treasurer: Alexandra Timofeeva Secretary: Petronia Taraschuk Choir Director: Mat. Natalia Henderson Sisterhood President: Alexandra Prizemin Times of Divine Services: Saturday 6:00 p.m. All-Night Vigil Sunday 9:40 a.m. Hours Sunday 10:00 a.m. Divine Liturgy For services on the Great Feasts, Saints’ Days, and the days of Great Lent, check the monthly calendar. 2 Namesdays Date Baptismal name Last name First name Dec 5 Maxim Sorokoletov Maxim Dec 6 Alexander Andreev Aleksander Dec 6 Alexander Baranoff Alexander Dec 6 Alexander Katsnelson Alexander Dec 6 Alexander Yaremenko Oleksandr Dec 7 Catherine Dunn Katherine Dec 7 Catherine Ivanov Ekaterina Dec 13 Andrei Repnitskiy Andrei Dec 13 Andrew Baranoff Alexander Dec 13 Andrew Damerau Andrew Dec 13 Andrew Taraschuk Andrei Dec 13 Andrew Vashchenko Andrew Dec 19 Nicholas Charczenko Nickolai Dec 19 Nicholas Chepelev Nikolai Dec 19 Nicholas Jankowsky Nick Dec 19 Nicholas Kripakov Nicholas Dec 19 Nicholas Shepovalov Nicholas Dec 22 Anna Krivolap Anna Dec 22 Anna Pankov Anna Dec 22 Anna Preobrazhensky Anna Dec 23 Angelina Djibilov Angelina May God grant them many years! Prayers for the sick John Dunn Vladimir Shlomov Deacon Jan Veselak youth Anna Preobrazhensky May God heal them of their ailments and give them strength during the time of illness.
    [Show full text]
  • International Research and Exchanges Board Records
    International Research and Exchanges Board Records A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Prepared by Karen Linn Femia, Michael McElderry, and Karen Stuart with the assistance of Jeffery Bryson, Brian McGuire, Jewel McPherson, and Chanté Wilson-Flowers Manuscript Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2011 International Research and Exchanges Board Records Page ii Collection Summary Title: International Research and Exchanges Board Records Span Dates: 1947-1991 (bulk 1956-1983) ID No: MSS80702 Creator: International Research and Exchanges Board Creator: Inter-University Committee on Travel Grants Extent: 331,000 items; 331 cartons; 397.2 linear feet Language: Collection material in English and Russian Repository: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Abstract: American service organization sponsoring scholarly exchange programs with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the Cold War era. Correspondence, case files, subject files, reports, financial records, printed matter, and other records documenting participants’ personal experiences and research projects as well as the administrative operations, selection process, and collaborative projects of one of America’s principal academic exchange programs. International Research and Exchanges Board Records Page iii Contents Collection Summary .......................................................... ii Administrative Information ......................................................1 Organizational History..........................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Orthodox Christian JOURNAL© V
    FALL 2018 volume 93 number 3 Also Inside: • National Scholarships Awarded • District Conventions Held • Seminaries Celebrate Anniversaries Fellowship Distributes St. Nicholas Day Gifts To Seminarian Families “O kto, kto, Nikolaja Lyubit...” Merry Christmas CHRIST IS BORN! GLORIFY HIM! NATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD C O N T E N T S SPIRITUAL ADVISOR Orthodox Christian JOURNAL© V. Rev. Theodore Boback FALL 2018 2028 East Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21231 OCJ VOLUME 93 NUMBER 3 Office: (410) 276-3422, Fax: (410) 276-3422 email: [email protected] FEATURE STORIES PRESIDENT 5 St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Theological Seminary Celebrates 80 Years of Allison Steffaro Theological Education & Spiritual Formation 38 Beryl Street, South River, NJ 08882 Cell: (732) 395-1651 COVER STORIES email: [email protected] 7 St. Vladimir’s Seminary Honors Fr. Chad Hatfield, Raises Scholarship VICE PRESIDENT Funds, Celebrates 50th Anniversary of SVS Press & Orthodox Ed Day Todd L. Walker 8926 Pine Bluff Court 9 FOCA “Gifts of Love” Project Cruise Eden Prairie, MN 55347 10 Crisis in Global Orthodoxy: The Patriarch of Constantinople 612-860-0374 & the Ukraine email: [email protected] 12 Congratulations on the 2018 FOCA National Scholarships Awarded RECORDING SECRETARY in St. Louis Danielle Ilchuk 321 School Street, Sewickley, PA 15143 14 St. Nicholas Chapel Receives Alaska Historical Commission Grant (412) 855-3748 email: [email protected] District News TREASURER 15 Cleveland Hosts Clam Bake to Benefit St. Vladimir’s Camp Michael Bowan 16 Central PA District Holds
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Philaret of New York
    Metropolitan Philaret of New York That blessed day will come when the Lord will have mercy on the Russian land and Russian people, and piety will be enthroned there, as once it had been in Holy Russia. But while we live this lot in exile, while we belong to this Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, I repeat again, let us thank the Lord for this and try to be true to Her in every way. Faithfulness to the Truth in Sermons and Teachings of His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret (Vol. 1). Introduction On Sunday 21 November 2010, all churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) commemorated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the repose of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), her third First Hierarch. Metropolitan of ROCOR, he was also a priest of the much-suffering Patriarchal Church for sixteen years between 1945 and 1961, and so is a bond of unity between the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moreover, he also represents hope for the future of Orthodoxy in China, where he lived for over forty years. A priest for thirty-one years and a bishop for twenty-two years, he is venerated by many as a holy man. Indeed, there are those who believe that one day, just like St John of Shanghai, he will be canonised by the whole Russian Orthodox Church, both in New York and in Moscow. We know that within ROCOR a service has already been composed to him and there are those who are now collecting testimonies about him. Let us look at his life and achievements.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow
    1 Archbishop Mark METROPOLITAN PHILARET (DROZDOV) OF MOSCOW "I only know the style of Karamzin and Philaret". With these words Count M.M.Speranskiy expressed his attitude to disputes about Admiral Shishkov's work on the old and new style of writing, the work that divided the Russian literary society of the time into two hostile parties 1. Slavophile I.S.Aksenov commiserated in his eulogy published in the Moskva Magazine that "the word full of meaning and artistic beauty which was heard in Russia for more than half a century, has gone quiet, the word that, on the one hand, penetrated deeply into the mysteries of the knowledge of God and, on the other, wrapped the Divine Truth into the beauty of clarity and strength”. Admiral Shishkov, on the contrary, criticised Metropolitan Philaret's translation of the Holy Scripture into modern Russian for perverting the Holy Books in which the Metropolitan allegedly replaced the language of the Church with the "language of the theatre". The person who caused such controversy - Vassiliy Mikhailovich Drozdov - was born on 26 th December 1782 in the city of Kolomna of the Moscow province. He was the son of the then deacon and later proto-presbyter of the city's cathedral Mikhail Fedorovich Drozdov. Having received primary education in his parents' home Vassiliy Mikhailovich entered Kolomna Seminary in 1791. After the seminary was closed in 1800 he moved on to the Seminary of the Holy Trinity St.Sergius Lavra. In 1803 he finished the course and in November of the same year was appointed the teacher of Greek and Hebrew at the Seminary.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Law of God by St
    On the Law of God by St. Philaret the Confessor http://livingorthodoxfaith.blogspot.com/2009/11/on-law-of-god-1-3.html#more I. Conscience And Moral Responsibility OF ALL the beings inhabiting the entire earth, only man has an understanding of morality. Every person is aware that the actions of man are either good or bad, kind or evil, morally positive or morally negative (immoral). By these concepts of morality, man immeasurably differs from all animals. Animals behave as is characteristic of them by nature, or else if they have been trained, in the way they are taught. But they have no concept of morality and immorality and so their behaviour cannot be examined from the point of view of moral understanding. By what means does one distinguish between the morally good and the morally bad? This differentiation is made by means of a special moral law given to man by God. And this moral law, this voice of God in man’s soul, we feel in the depth of our consciousness and it is called conscience. This conscience is the basis of morality common to man. A man who has never listened to his conscience, but stifled it, suppressed its voice with falseness and the darkness of stubborn sin, is often called unconscionable. The word of God refers to such stubborn sinners as people with a seared conscience. Their spiritual condition is extremely dangerous and can be ruinous for the soul. When a person listens to the voice of his conscience, he sees that this conscience speaks in him, first of all, as a judge–strict and incorruptible, evaluating all the actions and experiences of a person.
    [Show full text]
  • Synodal Gathering of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece at the Port Authority of Piræus
    The Orthodox Informer “For it is a commandment of the Lord not to be si- lent at a time when the Faith is in jeopardy. Speak, Scrip- ture says, and hold not thy peace.... For this reason, I, the wretched one, fearing the Tribunal, also speak.” (St. Theodore the Studite, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XCIX, col. 1321) Sunday of Orthodoxy February 16/March 1, 2015 A Synodal Gathering of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece at the Port Authority of Piræus Keynote Presentation Ecumenism in the Homestretch and the Orthodox Witness of a Contemporary Saint and Confessor † Bishop Klemes of Gardikion Secretary of the Holy Synod Your Beatitude; Most Reverend and Right Reverend holy Brethren; Venerable Fathers and Mothers; Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ: I The Genesis and Development of Ecumenism t the behest of the Holy Synod, and invoking your prayers, atten- Ation, and patience, with God’s help I will expound, at this great Synodal Gathering and on the radiant day of the Triumph of Orthodoxy over heresies, on a matter of grave importance. You are familiar with the endeavor, about a century ago, to create a “League of Churches,” modelled on the “League of Nations,” an inter- Christian confederation between different confessions, notwithstanding 1 their doctrinal differences, for the purpose of coöperating in common service and with the ultimate goal of their union. Such was the genesis of ecumenism. That vision was Protestant, but, as we know, the Church of Con- stantinople took the unprecedented step of proposing, in its “Patriar- chal Declaration of 1920,” the establishment of a “League of Church- es” for the benefit, supposedly, of the “whole body of the Church,”1 that is, of the Orthodox and the heterodox.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthodox Mission Methods: a Comparative Study
    ORTHODOX MISSION METHODS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY by STEPHEN TROMP WYNN HAYES submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY in the subject of MISSIOLOGY at the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA Promoter: Professor W.A. Saayman JUNE 1998 Page 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the University of South Africa, who awarded the Chancellor's Scholarship, which enabled me to travel to Russia, the USA and Kenya to do research. I would also like to thank the Orthodox Christian Mission Center, of St Augustine, Florida, for their financial help in attending the International Orthodox Christian Mission Conference at Holy Cross Seminary, Brookline, MA, in August 1996. To Fr Thomas Hopko, and the staff of St Vladimir's Seminary in New York, for allowing me to stay at the seminary and use the library facilities. The St Tikhon's Institute in Moscow, and its Rector, Fr Vladimir Vorobiev and the staff, for their help with visa applications, and for their patience in giving me information in interviews. To the Danilov Monastery, for their help with accom­ modation while I was in Moscow, and to Fr Anatoly Frolov and all the parishioners of St Tikhon's Church in Klin, for giving me an insight into Orthodox life and mission in a small town parish. To Metropolitan Makarios of Zimbabwe, and the staff and students of the Makarios III Orthodox Seminary at Riruta, Kenya, for their hospitality and their readiness to help me get the information I needed. To the Pokrov Foundation in Bulgaria, for their hospitality and help, and to the Monastery of St John the Forerunner in Karea, Athens, and many others in that city who helped me with my research in Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • St. Philaret of New York and the 'Heresy of Ecumenism
    ST. PHILARET OF NEW YORK AND THE ‘HERESY OF ECUMENISM’ https://www.academia.edu/19643413/ST._PHILARET_OF_NEW_YORK_AND_T HE_HERESY_OF_ECUMENISM Retrieved on 5/30/2016 When St. Philaret became Metropolitan of New York, he was hardly known outside China and Australia. And yet his career was already one of immense courage and holiness. In the 1940s he had suffered torture at the hands of the Japanese for refusing to bow to an idol in Harbin; in 1945 he was the only clergyman in the city who refused to accept a Soviet passport or commemorate the Soviet authorities that now took control of China; and in the 1950s he was subjected to torture by the Chinese communists, who unsuccessfully tried to blow him up but left him permanently injured. Involuntarily, after 1945 he found himself in the Moscow Patriarchate. But this burdened his conscience greatly, and he continued to denounce the Soviet Antichrist. Finally he got his chance to escape the nets of the communists and Soviet church: in 1961 he was able to leave China. “When, finally, with the help of God I managed to extract myself from red China, the first thing I did was turn to the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, Metropolitan Anastasy, with a request that he consider me again to be in the jurisdiction of the Russian Church Abroad. Vladyka Metropolitan replied with mercy and love, and immediately blessed me to serve in Hong Kong already as a priest of the Synodal jurisdiction, and pointed out that every church server passing into this jurisdiction from the jurisdiction of Moscow must give a special penitential declaration to the effect that he is sorry about his (albeit involuntary) stay in the Moscow jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Holy New Martyrs of Northern and Western Russia, Belorussia and the Baltic Introduction
    THE HOLY NEW MARTYRS OF NORTHERN AND WESTERN RUSSIA, BELORUSSIA AND THE BALTIC INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................3 1. HIEROMARTYR BARSANUPHIUS, BISHOP OF KIRILLOV ................................................5 2. HIEROMARTYR NICON, ARCHBISHOP OF VOLOGDA ....................................................9 3. HIEROMARTYR PLATO, BISHOP OF REVEL (TALLINN).................................................11 4. HIEROMARTYR EUGENE, BISHOP OF OLONETS .............................................................16 5. HIEROMARTYR BENJAMIN, METROPOLITAN OF PETROGRAD .................................17 6. HIEROMARTYR BARNABAS, ARCHBISHOP OF ARCHANGELSK ................................31 7. HIEROMARTYR JOSEPH, BISHOP OF VALDAI ..................................................................32 8. HIEROMARTYR HIEROTHEUS, BISHOP OF VELIKY USTIUG ........................................33 9. HIEROCONFESSOR EUTHYMIUS, BISHOP OF OLONETS ...............................................53 10. HIEROCONFESSOR NICHOLAS, BISHOP OF VELSK ......................................................54 11. HIEROMARTYR ANTHONY, ARCHBISHOP OF ARCHANGELSK..............................55 12. HIEROCONFESSOR MACARIUS, BISHOP OF CHEREPOVETS .....................................61 13. HIEROCONFESSOR BARSANUPHIUS, BISHOP OF KARGOPOL ..................................63 14. HIEROMARTYR JOHN, ARCHBISHOP OF RIGA..............................................................65
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Z. Vinokouroff: a Profile and Inventory of His Papers And
    MICHAEL Z. VINOKOUROFF: A PROFILE AND INVENTORY OF HIS PAPERS (Ms 81) AND PHOTOGRAPHS (PCA 243) in the Alaska Historical Library Louise Martin, Ph.D. Project coordinator and editor Alaska Department of Education Division ofState Libraries P.O. Box G Juneau Alaska 99811 1986 Martin, Louise. Michael Z. Vinokouroff: a profile and inventory of his papers (MS 81) and photographs (PCA 243) in the Alaska Historical Library / Louise Martin, Ph.D., project coordinator and editor. -- Juneau, Alaska (P.O. Box G. Juneau 99811): Alaska Department of Education, Division of State Libraries, 1986. 137, 26 p. : ill.; 28 cm. Includes index and references to photographs, church and Siberian material available on microfiche from the publisher. Partial contents: M.Z. Vinokouroff: profile of a Russian emigre scholar and bibliophile/ Richard A. Pierce -- It must be done / M.Z.., Vinokouroff; trans- lation by Richard A. Pierce. 1. Orthodox Eastern Church, Russian. 2. Siberia (R.S.F.S.R.) 3. Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America--Diocese of Alaska--Archives-- Catalogs. 4. Vinokour6ff, Michael Z., 1894-1983-- Library--Catalogs. 5. Soviet Union--Emigrationand immigration. 6. Authors, Russian--20th Century. 7. Alaska Historical Library-- Catalogs. I. Alaska. Division of State Libraries. II. Pierce, Richard A. M.Z. Vinokouroff: profile of a Russian emigre scholar and bibliophile. III. Vinokouroff, Michael Z., 1894- 1983. It must be done. IV. Title. DK246 .M37 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................. 1 “M.Z. Vinokouroff: Profile of a Russian Émigré Scholar and Bibliophile,” by Richard A. Pierce................... 5 Appendix: “IT MUST BE DONE!” by M.Z. Vinokouroff; translation by Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Current State of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad1
    On the Current State of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad1 Bishop Photii of Triaditza Selections from answers by Bishop Photii to questions posed to him by the faithful during his pastoral visits to the parishes of the True Orthodox Church of Bulgaria Introductory Remarks While not everyone (viz., those who have remained in the RO- COR after its union with Moscow) may agree with the attached es- say from the counsels of Bishop Photii, it is a balanced and fair ar- ticle that deserves careful attention. In our Sister Churches, Bishop Photii, who is one Archbishop Chrysostomos’ closest friends, is held in high esteem for his insights and for his humility. He is an extraordinarily gifted scholar (a former assistant professor at the University of Sofia) and a wonderfully sensitive and skilled pas- 1 Selections from Bishop Photii’s talks with congregations in Plovdiv, Pazardzhik, and Blagoevgrad, which took place on November 16 and November 27, 2006. His Eminence, Bishop Photii, First Hierarch of the Old Calen- dar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, was ordained to the Priesthood by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Phyle and consecrated to the Episcopacy by Metropolitan Cyprian and his Bishops. He is a former Lecturer (a European designation equivalent to the rank of Assistant Professor in the U.S.) at the University of Sofia, where he studied Classics and Theology and later taught the former subject. He speaks, in addition to his native Bulgarian, Greek, Russian, and French. He also reads English and Latin fluently. He was formed spiritually by the late Bulgarian theologian and academic, Archi- mandrite Dr.
    [Show full text]